About Rationally Speaking

Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Enlightenment is easy, or is it?

I've been in Japan for a bit more than a week now, and have visited several Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. I've also witnessed two Buddhist ceremonies (one at 6am in a cold mountain monastery). All of this got me to think about Enlightenment. As a Westerner, to me the word brings to memory Voltaire and the Encyclopedists, the Age of Reason and the skeptical yet compassionate writings of David Hume.

But to other people Enlightenment is the achievement of a state of being, the attainment of spiritual knowledge and insight. Of course, one could reasonably (in the Enlightenment-a-la-Voltaire sense) argue that “spiritual knowledge” is a contradiction in terms. Since there is no spirit (as a separate sort of thing from matter/energy), there cannot be spiritual knowledge. It would be like seeking insight into the nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Then again, one need not be so literal about words either. Even some atheists claim to be spiritual, or to have spiritual experiences (I don't, though I have that same sense of awe about the universe that led people like Carl Sagan to talk about secular spirituality). All right, then, if we understand Enlightenment (in the broad, inter-cultural, sense) to mean the attainment of a special – presumably true – insight into the nature of the world and of the human condition, how do we go about achieving it?

There are basically two routes. On the one hand, one can embrace a religious-mystical tradition (Eastern or Western matters little) and find insight into an idiosyncratic mix of reading “sacred” texts, reciting “sacred” words and performing “sacred” rituals. For example, the Buddhist monks I have seen on Mount Koya, or in Kyoto, are a very nice bunch who spends its time mumbling words in front of an altar, rapidly opening and closing books, and chanting while burning incense. Not so different from the Catholic rituals I grew up with, and equally removed – as far as I can see – from any Enlightenment whatsoever. The first route also passes through an isolationist attitude about the world: one “meditates” (again, not in the Western sense of thinking about something) by focusing one's awareness inward, the stereotypical approach to the quest is to live in isolated places where harsh climate, little food and much solitude (not to mention no sex) are supposed to give you understanding about your place in the universe (again, it matters little if you are a Buddhist apprentice or a Christian monk).

The second route also requires a combination of two paths, but they couldn't be more different from those of the religious-mystical approach. In the way of studying, one learns about philosophy and science, seeking to build knowledge and understanding on the shoulders of countless giants that preceded us, while attempting to square our limited but ever expanding comprehension of the world with what the world itself tells us – through observation, experimentation, and dialogue with other people who have observed and experimented. The second, complementary path to Enlightenment-a-la-Voltaire is also in many ways the opposite of the religious-mystical approach: it involves not withdrawing from, but engaging with the world and especially our fellow human beings. To understand human nature and empathize with the human condition one needs to experience humanity in all its glory and ugliness, seeing first hand what spectacular feats of achievement and compassion we are capable of, as well as what depths of atrocity and destruction we can just as easily unleash at a moment's notice.

The contrast between the mystical and the philosophical (both intended here in the broadest sense) approaches to Enlightenment couldn't be starker. They say it requires discipline to meditate (or pray), to follow arbitrary rules of conduct, and to study the sacred texts. I say it's a piece of cake, compared to the immense challenge of learning what Socrates, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein have discovered about the universe and our place in it; or compared to keeping up with what is going on in the world while remaining engaged in society, with the goal of making things better for us and for our children; or compared with maintaining true relationships with real people, every day of our lives, with all the challenges and rewards that this entails. As I said, the contrast is striking, what's odd is how many people choose the easy path.

77 comments:

I have done a fair amount of reading of basic texts on Buddhism, and it seems to me that many of the core principles are quite reasonable, even from a scientific viewpoint -- impermanence, "no-self" (i.e., there is no eternal, unchanging soul), and desire as the basis of suffering. I even think aspects of the idea of karma are useful (your actions can come back to help/hurt you), though I reject reincarnation. I don't think the core principles are arbitrary -- they can help one to lead a better, happier, more compassionate life that is good not only for the individual, but for society. I suppose the same could perhaps be said of many religions, but Buddhism does not hinge on the existence of an all-powerful deity, which makes a big difference for me.

It is true that Buddhist monks -- to varying degrees -- withdraw from the world to contemplate, engage in rituals, etc., but I would argue that it does take substantial effort to deeply understand how things really are (again, according to Buddhism 101, impermanent and unsatisfactory) and to live life 24/7 in the real world based on that understanding.

I'm curious to see what you think of the modern (primarily Western) form of Buddhism (as described in books like Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor). I suppose the argument could be made that it isn't really Buddhism, because much of the mysticism has been shed. In a sense, though, that's akin to saying we shouldn't do taxonomy because a lot of the principles still in use are from Linnaeus and thus do not explicitly reflect an evolutionary worldview. Furthermore, I would say that the mysticism, beautiful temples, etc. are window dressing, and that though Buddhism as a religion may suffer when they are lost, Buddhism as a way of thinking (philosophy?) does not.

I like Frank's comment & find the original post suffers from the splitting/lumping issue - the magnitude of the differences and similarities depends on what one chooses to emphasize. It's a matter of perspective.

I agree with Frank's point that it takes substantial effort to deeply understand reality (most scientists have at best a superficial understanding of "no-self"- myself included). But I would go farther and suggest that no one can really "feel" this way 24/7 - our genes have built our bodies to be very concerned about itself - for without this intense concern about ourself our genes would not survive.

There is considerable misunderstanding about what Zen enlightenment really is and no shortage of folks willing to misinform others to reap the benefits of being considered "an enlightened being."

Buddha's realization was that all beings are already enlightened but simply don't know this fact

(translated: all beings who naturally focus most of their energies on their own genetic survival, actually are products of the universe, ie 'the source' aka 'God' etc - they have never left this source despite their intense feeling of separateness and independence from it and each other.)

Realizing that your consciousness is just along for the ride - and not an actual 'doer' really flips the world upside down. We get awareness of most of our internal feedback systems (1) burn finger on stove (2) make mental note not to touch hot stove but we really have no control. No free will.

Regardless of how conceptually understood this may be, it's very hard to 'feel'. Enlightenment is described as either or both of the following:

1. you are doing everything in the universe, from shining the sun to invading iraq, to eating your breakfast to beating your heart

2. you are doing nothing in the universe, it is doing it all for you and everything/body else.

but the standard notion that you are doing some things and other people are doing other things, although helpful to run an economy and a society, is an oversimplification and wrong.

Coincidentally there was a great post on another blog that is quite relevant which I've copied below.

& Sorry if Massimo doesn't want a repeat of the former debate on the merits of Zen:

A "modern" explanation (1995) from Joan Tollifson (taken from her first book, Bare-Bones Meditation: Waking Up From the Story of My Life):

Meditation is not merely a quest for personal peace of mind or self-improvement. It involves an exploration of the roots of our present global suffering and the discovery of an alternative way of living. Meditation is seeing the nature of thought, how thought constantly creates images about ourselves and others, how we impose a conceptual grid on reality and then mistake the map for the territory itself. Most of the time we aren't even aware that thought is taking place. Meditation is realizing, on ever more subtle levels, that it is. When conceptualization is seen for the imaginary abstraction that it is, something changes.

Meditation is listening. Listening to everything. To the world, to nature, to the body, the mind, the heart, the rain, the traffic, the wind, the thoughts, the silence before sound. It is about questioning our frantic efforts to do something and become somebody, and allowing ourselves simply to be. It is a process of opening and quieting down, of coming upon an immediacy of being that cannot be known or captured by thought, and in which there is no sense of separation or limitation. Meditation is moment-to-moment presence that excludes nothing and sticks to nothing.

Meditation is not dependent on a method or program. It questions any attempt by the mind to construct any program or goal. It relies on no techniques, special practices, costumes, or body positions. It is utterly simple and available to everyone at every moment. Meditation is that which we are, when all that we think we are is not in the way.

Meditation is a powerful antidote to our purposeful, growth-oriented, war-mongering, speed-driven, ever-productive consumer civilization, which is rapidly devouring the earth. In doing meditation work we do not, as is commonly imagined, retreat from reality, but from our habitual escapes from reality. Meditation is a social and political act. Listening and not-doing are actions far more powerful than most of us have yet begun to realize. But meditation is much more (and much less) than all of this.

PS - watching zen monks meditating is about as usual a way of understanding what is going on as watching mathematicians think.

As for comments by Frank and "me": we all agree that it takes time and effort to achieve understanding about the world, but my point is that one cannot achieve understanding of anything by simply shutting oneself out of the world one is trying to allegedly understand.

Does it take effort to meditate and live an isolated life? Yes, but it ain't the sort of effort that brings insight into anything, and it is much less effort than it is required to seriously study science and philosophy (as opposed to sacred texts), not to mention to engage with the messiness of real human life.

I am completely with the second route Massimo and yes, I fell what Carl Sagan call secular "spirituality" when read or hear claims about our world like this. It is like read or hear poetry. Very clear post.

Like the song of Paul McCartney I hope one day:

"Hope of deliverance, hope of deliverance.Hope of deliverance from the darkness that surrounds us."

It has always been my suspicion that the tradition of seeking out solitude in harsh conditions was a method for inducing hallucinations.

From Jesus in the desert and Moses on Mount Sinai, to native North Americans seeking a vision from their totem animal, what better explanation than hallucinations?

They can seem very real and powerful, especially if you expect that they convey meaning and are part of a religious experience.

I wonder whether the intent focus on achieving a particular outcome from the procedure is capable of directing the hallucination into yielding 'relevant' results or one just keeps at it until an acceptable one occurs.

I don't know enough about eastern mysticism to be sure, but possibly their achieving a state of 'oneness' is also the result of hallucination.

As for comments by Frank and "me": we all agree that it takes time and effort to achieve understanding about the world, but my point is that one cannot achieve understanding of anything by simply shutting oneself out of the world one is trying to allegedly understand.

Sorry in advance for the wordy response...

I agree -- understanding does not come only from shutting oneself away alone, but I think contemplation of obsevations is crucial for understanding anything. I would argue that at least some forms of meditation involve deep contemplation of how the universe works, and such contemplation has to be based on real-world experiences.

If it is true that some forms of meditation are contemplation about how the universe is (based on personal experience or accounts of the experiences of others), I don't see what the problem is. How do scientists increase our understanding of how the universe works? Unquestionably, observations, real-world experience and experiments are vital. But all of that information needs to be interpreted, and that requires a phase of consideration of what the observations mean. There are plenty of brilliant theoreticians that greatly expanded our understanding of how the universe works by spending virtually all of their time sitting in an office thinking about observations they (or others) have made and trying to place these observations into an explanatory framework. I know that's how I do a lot of my science, anyway.

There is an aspect to this that I didn't mention previously. Some forms of meditation explicitly involve exploration of how the mind works. What thoughts arise during meditation, and what thoughts follow those thoughts? That is certainly a form of experience, right? My brain is doing something. Can I observe how my mind leaps from thought to thought and if so, does that help me understand aspects of my experience and (perhaps more importantly) how I react to those experiences? I think so, on both counts. Could a CT scan somehow do that better? Probably in some ways -- it could certainly tell external observers some things about how my brain works that I wouldn't be able to explain -- but there are aspects of the experience that a CT scan would miss.

Does it take effort to meditate and live an isolated life? Yes, but it ain't the sort of effort that brings insight into anything...

If at least some forms of meditation could be characterized as contemplation of existence in our universe or how the mind functions, I disagree. Contemplation is the only way we ever gain understanding of anything. Otherwise our experiences are just a mass of disconnected observations.

...and it is much less effort than it is required to seriously study science and philosophy (as opposed to sacred texts), not to mention to engage with the messiness of real human life.

Of course I agree that seriously studying and understanding science and philosophy is difficult. I would suggest that Buddhism (including the practice of insight meditation) could be seen as a form of philosophy. Again, I am no expert in philosophy, but meditation certainly seems no less useful to me than branches of philosophy that hinge on aspects of the universe that can't actually be observed or tested.

"everything is relative" - this speaks to a fundamental problem of science. Yes, I agree that there is a single, objective truth (external to the mind and available to most who use the same methods) - but here's the problem: As Frank pointed out and as should be obvious, we should not dismiss the subjective "truths" (if we can call them that) which are internal to each mind. It is hard to explain, but, really, all of the external truth is known to us only in this internal, subjective mind. Because this internal mind cannot be easily measured, observed, explained or studied, scientists tend to dismiss it as either unreal or unimportant.

Zen is a disciplined, ritualistic way, perhaps one of the only ways, to "study" this internal mind from the inside. Your own mind. Not some generic patterns that apply to all humans, but the mind that represents YOUR universe. All external truths must be known to you via your mind but if you don't know your mind very well you're missing out on a HUGE portion of your universe.

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be rude, but what on earth does that mean? Meditating is the same as conducting scientific experiments? What meaning of the word "same" are you using?

And to follow up - yes, Zen meditation is just like conducting an experiment. Remove as much external stimuli as possible, focus your observations on your own thoughts, observing them rather than following them. If you observe your own thoughts the same way a behavioral ecologist observes the behaviors of their study organisms you will see patterns, you will learn about how your brain works. This is hard to do. It is much harder to do if there are lots of distractions. Does this explain my use of the word "same"?

Massimo is addressing an objective reality that exists independent of ourselves. I guess we could also make the case for a subjective reality, but it applies only to ourselves as individuals, may have no basis in fact, and is subject to change.

I've only recently accepted the reality that Cameron Diaz and I will never be an "item".

Sorry Me but this way to reason sounds as when you try to explain the appearance of a ghost.

"I see them, I see them, sure, believe me!!", in other words an act of faith.

I'm sure someone could destroy your physical and mental health by torturing your mind only. You could try to resist but would experience real suffering. People who believe in ghosts do suffer, genuine neurotransmitters are released, real physiological changes take place. I've heard that people in Haiti will actually die from fear of voodoo they believe so strongly that it is real.

I'm not saying that if someone claims they see a ghost that the ghost is "real" for all to see, but I am saying that very real changes happen internally. This subjective "reality" exists & despite our scientific attempts to diminish it and dismiss it as unimportant - to be as rational and objective as possible, we will never be able to escape it.

I didn't know if my paper came this morning but when I went out to my driveway, there it was. Did it not exist until I saw it?

This is an old issue in philosophy & science. Massimo knows more about it than I do. But your paper existing before you saw it is an assumption. It is unverifiable and thus outside the domain of science.

(It's a good assumption though! But I know people who claim their unverifiable assumptions are good too... who can say?)

Lurker said: Massimo is addressing an objective reality that exists independent of ourselves.

I don't dispute that there is an objective reality. I just think our interpretations of that objective reality matter.

Lurker said: I guess we could also make the case for a subjective reality, but it applies only to ourselves as individuals, may have no basis in fact, and is subject to change.

Yes, except for the "no basis in fact" part. If I have a thought, is it a fact that I had that thought, even if it can't be verified by anyone other than me?

icaro said: Sorry Me but this way to reason sounds as when you try to explain the appearance of a ghost.

"I see them, I see them, sure, believe me!!", in other words an act of faith.

All right. I think this is getting a bit more contentious than it needs to be...who can be the biggest skeptic?

It is not an "act of faith" that I believe that something happens in my brain (of course, the very act of believing that something happens in my brain makes it true...Descartes would be proud!). I am not making ridiculous statements about anything out in the universe (and certainly nothing supernatural like ghosts) other than that I have a brain that does stuff and that I can learn something about that process through paying attention to my thought processes (a form of meditation). If we disagree on that, then I suppose we have nothing left to discuss.

It seems clear to me that what goes on in our brains matters, given that every explanation we've every developed for anything is based on (first) observing something "out there" in nature and (second) on events that occured in brains (material globs of tissue inside material skulls) that constructed an explanation. Existence of a subjective experience obviously doesn't mean there isn't an objective reality.

I wrote: I just think our interpretation of that objective reality matters.

Lurker wrote: There is no room for interpretation. That's the reason we call it objective. When you interpret it, it becomes subjective.

I think we're drifting pretty far afield at this point, but I stand by my statement. Maybe I should've used a word other than "interpretation" (contemplation?). I am happy to assume that objective reality exists whether or not I (or any other creature with the power to observe or think) observe or think about it. Again, existence of a subjective experience does not mean an objective reality doesn't exist. Of course, the subjective experience itself is part of objective reality, given that it is only some chemical reactions in a brain. It's just hard to detect and interpret -- oops! -- such events using modern technology (but getting easier all the time).

Events in our brains that are involved in processing information about reality as brought in through the senses are clearly important. I think we can learn something such events by simply trying to pay attention to thought processes, as in some forms of meditation. Denigrating meditation because of associations with monks and mysticism is, I think, simplistic and silly.

But Frank, I still don't understand why you insist on using the word "meditate" when we already have the perfectly acceptable word "think" in common usage. (which doesn't carry the baggage that the word "meditate" does in western society)

"They say it requires discipline to meditate (or pray), to follow arbitrary rules of conduct, and to study the sacred texts. I say it's a piece of cake, compared to the immense challenge of learning what Socrates, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein,.."

What can be challenging about "prayer" is different than that. It's the reasons that people chose to pray that adds to the complexity level. Who is to say, for instance, that Galileo did not pray. Yet, his life wasn't necessarily an easy one. A great number of people who have lead anything but an easy life have been known to pray.

In this you are comparing prayer and a person's analytical inclinations and or activities as if they should be in competition with one another. Or that one should have to choose between one or the other. And who ever said that such a thing should be so?

But Frank, I still don't understand why you insist on using the word "meditate" when we already have the perfectly acceptable word "think" in common usage. (which doesn't carry the baggage that the word "meditate" does in western society).

Good question! I guess it requires me to know what "thinking" is....nah, I won't worry about that! Some meditation is just thinking focused on a particular topic (like death).

However, meditation can encompass lots of mental activities, and only some of these match what most people consider "thinking". For example, meditation often involves attempting to still the mind by focusing on the breath or a repeated word/syllable (like the famous "om"). It is attempting to avoid thinking, but thoughts invariably do "bubble up", and that's a part of the process. Those stray thoughts can reveal something about how one's mind works.

This is the sort of meditation I do, and even if it doesn't help me understand anything new about the universe, it helps me sleep and does wonders for my concentration in general.

I've got to go home now, the work day is over. (Yeah, it's been tough) Good talking with you all.

Yes, I enjoyed it, too...tomorrow, though, I think I'd better do a bit more work!

"your paper existing before you saw it is an assumption. It is unverifiable and thus outside the domain of science."

Unverifiable?? Hell, the paper boy who threw it will verify it.

ha, funny..

But I'm surprised Massimo didn't jump in and help explain. I saw him start a talk once explaining this as one of big problems of philosophy.

Clearly I was referring to the fact that observation is required to verify something so, by definition, if there is no observation, there is no verification. There can be prediction and assumption but no verification until observations are made (by someone).

"Clearly I was referring to the fact that observation is required to verify something so, by definition, if there is no observation, there is no verification."

That is rather similar to saying that without "experience" one cannot know about various types of situations. That is simply not true. The mind has the ability to wrap itself around ideas that it has no concrete experience with, just as well as an event can be assured of having happened without observation.

For instance, a murder occurs. But no person actually observes it (to verify it) because the murderer plots a poisoning so that he is never present. Poison, however, evident in the deceased should be enough.

me said earlier "Yes, I agree that there is a single, objective truth (external to the mind and available to most who use the same methods)"

My understanding is that we can't fully escape subjectivity because we are bound by ideology. Even speaking in terms of science...we do science from a human standpoint. e.g., in quantum mechanics, the tools and the observers, being confined to the classical world of mechanics, cannot make precise measurements at the quantum level. By observing quantum phenomena we are interacting with our object. We cannot entirely escape subjectivity because we simply cannot change what we are (observers in the classical, macroscopic world). Anyone familiar w/ Mannheim? Basically he says we can't fully overcome our ideologies, that the best we can do is be aware of them and limit our subjectivity by broadening our knowledge of other ideologies. It's a really interesting read, his book Ideology & Utopia. If science is "truth" or "reality", it is only the visible part of it. Who knows what other parts of the spectrum we can't see. I know that's not the domain of science since what we can't see isn't falsifiable, but we should at least accept or be aware (à la Copenhagen Interpretation) of the limits of science, of our ideology.

"C'mon Massimo, this is your blog - set us straight! I think it's time for a lesson on inference, induction & deduction & epistemology 101."

I'd rather not at the moment, though this may be a good topic for a future post. Instead, I'd really like some supporters of Buddhism to explain exactly what sort of "insight" once can achieve through meditation, chanting and/or isolation.

Please, be specific and don't use the old "we are one with the universe" thing, because it's pretty meaningless (and/or unverifiable).

Also, don't tell me that the above mentioned "one with the universe" sort of statement is "the same" as what fundamental physics tells us (i.e., that everything is made of quarks). It's not the same, since the latter is a conclusion reached by scientific theory and observation, with very specific predictions about how matter behaves; the former is just a vague notion, akin to some ancient Greeks' idea of atoms.

I understand that you are more comfortable with the philosophical approach, so am I, but this is not motive to discredit the alternative route.You defend your choice about the available routes to reach enlightenment emphasizing the good side of the philosophical-scientific approach and the bad one of religious-mystical approach. My purpose here was to defend an opposite position, but given your dislike to religion, I feel that I do have neither the strength nor the appropriate background to discuss the existence of the good side of religion. Then, I pass directly to comment the bad side of science.

According to the first path to Enlightenment-a-la-Voltaire, I have some doubts about its effectiveness:

If this is a route to reach enlightenment, why do most of the scientists reach for their gun when they hear the words “philosophy of science”?, as you pointed out, or why do many biologists think that the chief function of philosophy of science is to provide employment to a small number of academics?, as Wilkins commented. Does this route really exist?

If not enlightenment at all, it is expected that the way of studying improve, in some way, the human quality of scientists. But seems this is not true. As Di Trocchio tells us in his book “The lies of the science”, scientists (Nobel Prizes included) manipulate and steal data and samples, exploit the fellows, sign works that have not carried out and publish the same data in different journals, among other tricks. The worse thing of all is that the modern scientist lies for money. Certanly, technology works because science works. And it functions so well that the main meaning scientists seek in their experiments is the practical application.

It seems that the learning of philosophy and science not lead automatically to the enlightenment. What more is necessary?

Respect to the second path, from my point of view, if you live both in the Tibet or in the centre of New York, the only way to know about yourself is through the analysis, in solitude, of your deep inside.

In general, scientists are not interested in contemplating the world through the prism of science. For those that do it, how do they see the world? Is the world observed by the scientists different from the world observed by the mystics? For some scientists, for example Erwin Laszlo, they are surprisingly similar.

If really both scientists and mystics observe the same world, I suspect the key probably resides in understanding the world through both our brain and our heart, as Laszlo suggested.

thanks for your post, but I still disagree with your take. First of all, I never said that studying science automatically leads to enlightenment. My much more modest claim was that there is no understanding of the world (which is part, but not all, of "elinghtenment") without science. The rest comes from studying philosophy and from personal experience.

Second, I really don't think there is much to understand about one's own mind by concentrating inward. To understand yourself you have to engage with other human beings, for the simple reason that we are social animals. To try to understand yourself in isolation would be like studying plant biology by putting plants in space. You get something all right, but it's weird, and it has little connection to the real thing.

Massimo wrote: I'd really like some supporters of Buddhism to explain exactly what sort of "insight" once can achieve through meditation, chanting and/or isolation.

Here's my take:

I don't think meditation gives us any new data about the universe (any more than Einstein thinking in his office does). What it can do, however, is help us "deeply understand" truths about the universe, drawn from experience. Huh? Here's an example. Suppose we are all sitting around having beers and one of us says "You know, we should really do unto others as we would have others do unto us". We all nod our agreement -- the Golden Rule is generally a good idea (I'm sure there are philosophical arguments against the Golden Rule -- if so, for the sake of my point, pretend that there is some morality rule that everyone can agree on). I finish my beer, step out of the pub and find a wallet on the sidewalk with $20 in it. I am a bit short on cash, so I turn the wallet in to the police, but relieve it of the $20 first.

Obviously, I can understand and accept the value of the Golden Rule at some level, and yet not practice it, or bring that understanding into my daily life.

Now a Buddhist example. One of the fundamental truths of the universe from the Buddhist perspective is impermanance. Basically, everything changes. I accept this as a fundamental truth based on my personal experiences in the universe, and I think most people would. So? Well, as in the example above, I can accept impermanence as a fundamental truth about the universe and yet not bring that understanding into my daily existence or have it as a fundamental aspect of my view of the universe.

Meditation can be used to remind me that impermanence is a fact of life, and that it is perhaps best for me to not get hung up on the fact that people that I love die, or the chocolate cake on my kitchen counter will eventually run out or go stale. It doesn't generate any new information about how the universe works; it simply gives me an opportunity to reflect upon how nothing (I have ever encountered) in the universe is permanent and to make that understanding a fundamental part of how I look at the universe. It isn't about the real world so much as it is about how I cope with and respond to the real world. As subjective as that is, I would call it "insight", and I would argue this gives me a healthier perspective on things in my life. If that's all it does, meditation has value. It's certainly more useful than watching reruns of Gilligan's Island (which I would never do, of course).

Massimo also wrote: Second, I really don't think there is much to understand about one's own mind by concentrating inward. To understand yourself you have to engage with other human beings, for the simple reason that we are social animals. To try to understand yourself in isolation would be like studying plant biology by putting plants in space. You get something all right, but it's weird, and it has little connection to the real thing.

Even most monks engage with real people every day (at least other monks), and have had plenty of real-world experiences. I think meditation (and even isolation) can simply provide a mental space to reflect on those experiences and allow us to understand at some deeper level (as described above) what they mean. And I do think I learn something even from the simple practice of "watching my breath" in meditation. Thoughts come through even when I am actively trying to not have thoughts. What thoughts arise? Where do those come from? I think this can tell me if there is something bothering me, and I might be able to figure out what to do about it, or what attitude I should adopt towards the problem. Is this brain research? No, but I think it does tell me something about how my mind works that I can use to better my life (and, through my daily interactions with people, the lives of others).

I don't remember where I read the following story, possibly it was a post on a motorcycle site:

The writer said that he was in a park where a group of Buddhist monks were also meeting. He noticed that one of the young monks was closely watching a boy riding a unicycle. The monk paid close attention to how the boy got onto the unicycle, how he maneuvered it, and how he came to a stop.

The writer, who was able to ride a unicycle himself, made it clear that when someone first tries riding one he usually falls flat on his face.

After closely observing the boy for an hour or so, the young monk went over to talk to the unicycle rider. The rider gave the unicycle to the monk who got on it and immediately fell flat on his face.

Second, I really don't think there is much to understand about one's own mind by concentrating inward.

It's my understanding that doing this practice leads one to realize strongly the odd fact that you do not generate your own thoughts. We all have this feeling that we have a free will despite it being, according to the scientific research I've read, an illusion.

Buddhist literature is rife with references to 'no self' which is the flip side of 'being one with everything' but also happens, not coincidentally, to be the same conclusions coming out of research into the idea of 'free will'. I say not coincidentally because zen meditation in fact provides a repeated and direct observation of the generation of one's own thoughts - if one is trying not to think, but thoughts keep arising, it becomes aparent eventually that those thoughts arise much like your heart beats - completely out of your control.

If you don't generate your thoughts, what does?

I would call this insight. I also recommend it to those who wish to understand how it works, especially those like Massimo who feel free to criticize it without (1) having done it or (2) read very much about it. I'm afraid quick comments by blog visitors hardly counts as a good way of learning about the values of zen meditation.

M: "To understand yourself you have to engage with other human beings, for the simple reason that we are social animals. To try to understand yourself in isolation would be like studying plant biology by putting plants in space."

I tend to agree on this point at least. Watched a documentary on the Heavens Gate cult a few days ago. The astounding thing is how well educated most of the cult members were. Yet, even with all the inward reflection stuff going on, most of the group ignored all the warning signs that would have shown them that their leader (who tried to gender neutralize his followers, because he wasn't sure what gender he was) was a total lunatic.

So if a group of people who are that intelligent, educated and sensitive can be fooled - anyone can be. Therefore, consensus may even be (in part) the wrong way to judge if some idea is healthy or wise. Another example: Less than possibly 40 scientists were convinced to began the work on nukes, starting with Germany. Look at where we are today with that.

Science (and the input of scientists) is not enough to save anyone, Massimo. If we don't know why we are inclined to follow another person or a particular idea, any of it is subject to a massive and even destructive potential. cal

I'm enjoying this, obviously. However, please no cheap shots like "well, you have to study it for 30 years before you understand it." First, I don't have 30 years to waste on a wild goose chase; second, the whole point of discussions with others is to get to understand, however superficially, other points of view. Notice that I don't say to Cal that she needs to study evolutionary biology for 30 years before she will understand it (of course, that problably wouldn't help either :)

Moreover, the "insight" that everything changes is hardly an insight, it's a simple observation about the world, which occurred to the ancient Greeks without meditation. What we do with this fundamental truth is more interesting, but it depends on how we relate to it, something that -- again -- I maintain is better explored through dialogue with other people, rather than by focusing on one's breadth.

The example of realizing that one's own thoughts _seem_ to be generated by someone else is more interesting, but the whole problem with self-reflection is that it hardly produces knowledge, because the entire experience is contained in ourselves without any possibility of external validation. We could simply be mistaken, or deluded as when we are hallucinating. Granted, science can't help here, and readers of this blog know that I don't have a problem acknowledging science's limitations. What annoys me is when people pretend to go "beyond" science while what they are doing offers no "beyond" at all.

I think you nicely nailed it here: but the whole problem with self-reflection is that it hardly produces knowledge, because the entire experience is contained in ourselves without any possibility of external validation

with the exception that if the method is replicable enough then anyone interested can try it and see if they come to the same realizations that others have come to - yes, not external validation & yes all the practictioners could be equally deluded.

I think this is the same sort of problem, is it not, of whether the "red" color I see is the same "red" color you see - since we can't check by going inside each others minds...

I doubt any meditator would advocate the method as a replacement for empirical science. And to return to your post's thesis - as cal mentioned earlier, it's not an either / or situation. Scientific based enlightenment can be acheived by someone who also realizes zen enlightenment.

I would argue that someone who sought both would have a much better grasp of reality than someone who sought only one. I suppose Massimo would disagree - arguing that zen meditation provides no insight into reality. I can't afford more time to try to convince Massimo otherwise, but I did write a post on this topic, on my own blog, in response to comments made by Massimo last year.

for the curious, the post I wrote is titled "four points that zen and science (might) agree on" and can be found here

"What annoys me is when people pretend to go "beyond" science while what they are doing offers no "beyond" at all."

Are you referring to me (things I have said), or eastern religions?

I do not pretend, M. I mean what I say.

There are limits on what science CAN do. There are also boundaries imposed by information within a system on how much "change" one will ever observe biology-wise or otherwise. (thankfully, noses, toes and feet don't just keep growing, etc.) The actual laws that cause whatever change we see, probably don't change at all.

But in truth, there really are not limits on what one 'can say' that science can do. AND doing such, does not necessarily make it wrong or dishonest. It's just odd that you'd suggest differently.

"...Notice that I don't say to Cal that she needs to study evolutionary biology for 30 years before she will understand it (of course, that problably wouldn't help either :)"

You're absolutely right. It's either something one knows, or one doesn't WANT to know.

I have found over the years, ever since I was a tot when I first heard evolution discussed between some cranky old souls (and that was more than 3o years ago), that people will accept evidence for or against evolution IF THEY WANT TO.

And that's really about all the matter of evidence amounts to.

If studying some idea for 30 years isn't about to help one get a better grasp of a fluid sort of concept, what makes anyone think matter might become MORE ORDERLY and thus highly organized in 30 million?

"I would argue that someone who sought both would have a much better grasp of reality than someone who sought only one."

Here follow an example by product of we are social animals and need share thougts.(for try to convince you of your last nonsense claim)

Very, very sorry "me" but I need to say this. There is a person (it is no me, I think :)) in this blog (and in the all world,sure) that have a lot of social recognition for "see" the reality clearly and apparently follow the second route. Please "me" your claim try to justify a nonsense.

M: Moreover, the "insight" that everything changes is hardly an insight, it's a simple observation about the world, which occurred to the ancient Greeks without meditation.

Agreed, but (as you noted) what we do with this knowledge is interesting (and, I would say, important), and I think that's where meditation can help.

What we do with this fundamental truth is more interesting, but it depends on how we relate to it, something that -- again -- I maintain is better explored through dialogue with other people, rather than by focusing on one's breadth.

It would be pretty depressing to focus on my breadth during meditation...getting fat and old is no fun! ;-)

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...

Seriously -- I'm repeating myself, but I agree that real-world experience (including dialogue with others) is absolutely necessary. I am simply saying that a period of reflection -- as provided by meditation, though critical thinking counts, too -- is crucial, and can allow connections to be made that might not be made otherwise.

I feel we're talking past each other, so let's try to achieve some clarification. It sounds from your comments that perhaps you are not just arguing that meditation provides no understanding of anything, but that contemplation of any kind is unnecessary for understanding -- dialogue with other humans is necessary and sufficient for understanding. Is that a fair characterization?

If it is, I am surprised, and I disagree. Experiencing the real world (which includes at least occasional interactions with other sentient beings) is necessary but insufficient for understanding that world, at any level. Contemplation -- of which meditation is one form -- is also necessary. The insights of the great scientific thinkers were certainly helped along by dialogue with others, but (unless I am profoundly mistaken about Darwin and Einstein) dialogue alone did not generate the theory of natural selection or general relativity.

Or maybe you are just arguing that withdrawing into oneself completely provides no insight into the real world? If so, I agree...but I think it's a trivial statement. Monks (or meditators in general) don't live their entire lives in sensory-deprivation tanks. They all have plenty of real-life experiences and interactions to contemplate.

Now, we could debate whether or not meditation is as useful a mental exercise as thinking critically/scientifically for processing information about the real world, but (as far as I can tell) that's another issue.

Massimo said:"Second, I really don't think there is much to understand about one's own mind by concentrating inward. To understand yourself you have to engage with other human beings, for the simple reason that we are social animals."

Gosh Massimo, that is awfully narrow minded of you. I am no meditator, but I am a gregarious loner. While I agree with you that we are social animals and that to learn something about ourselves we need to engage with other people. But don't you think that spending time alone and reflecting on things, your social relationships, or nature for example, is a good thing to do?

Also, while I might agree that nothing about the "world" or "universe" can be learned form meditating, it seems the meditators here gain something beneficial from it. Maybe they gain something that is emotionally positive from it. Perhaps they, the meditators, ME, Frank and others, just have a habit of describing these benefits in flowery and mystical language? Maybe because those are the only words to describe it?

Perhaps they, the meditators, ME, Frank and others, just have a habit of describing these benefits in flowery and mystical language? Maybe because those are the only words to describe it?

Gah! I've been trying not to use such language, but perhaps I've failed. There no doubt is a mystical element for some Buddhists. However -- and this was one of my initial points in this discussion -- I don't think that mystical element is a necessary component of either Buddhism or meditation. That is the central theme of Buddhism Without Beliefs (the book I mentioned in my first comment), so I presume the author would agree.

No, Icaro, your English is not worse every day, I am sure it must be getting better.

Your written English is far better than my written Spanish, that's for sure. If I spend at least like a week and Mexico or Gua. my Spanish certainly improves as will your English when you spend more time conversing with people this way. :)

not to worry about this. I was just trying to figure out who you were directing your comments at. cal

I have little experience on eastern philosophies. However, Frank has described outstandingly what I understand for “concentrating inward”. I am not a mystic, but in some occasions, I have seen reflected my thoughts on some mystical texts. For this reason, in spite of that I have chosen the second route, I have not problem in accepting that eastern philosophies could be an alternative (or complementary) route. Then, I aggree with Frank for that mystical element is not a necessary component of either Buddhism or meditation.

"Gah! I've been trying not to use such language, but perhaps I've failed. There no doubt is a mystical element for some Buddhists."

Frank,My apologies, I wasn't neccessarily referring to anything specific you actually said as "mystical". I think Massimo at one point was taking you or ME to task for the use of the word "insight" for example. It seems Massimo has a very specific idea of what a rather ambigous word like "insight" should mean. On the other hand a Buddhist meditator like yourself may be attempting to get ideas across with this word that is really something entirely different?

I don't know. I am just trying to get a handle on what you guys are trying to say without to quikly dismissing it.

Perhaps it is to mundane for a Buddhist to use a phrase such as "Zen meditation is something that benefits my mental health."?

It seems Massimo has a very specific idea of what a rather ambigous word like "insight" should mean. On the other hand a Buddhist meditator like yourself may be attempting to get ideas across with this word that is really something entirely different?....Perhaps it is to mundane for a Buddhist to use a phrase such as "Zen meditation is something that benefits my mental health."?

I think most (all?) types of meditation can provide benefits for mental health, and different types of meditation can provide different benefits. I also think it can confer a type of understanding that can come only through contemplation.

It is akin to really understanding what, say, glycolysis is by making mental connections between it and other metabolic and chemical processes. When I was a sophomore in college, I memorized the basics of glycolysis enough to do well on my biology exam. It wasn't until I was a graduate student and had to teach other students about glycolysis that I really understood that it is just a slow, partial oxidization (i.e., combustion) of sugar. Aha, I thought -- that's where the energy comes from! Yes, perhaps I was a bit thick as a sophomore -- I should've known that the first time through (you can see why I didn't become a biochemist) -- but through further contemplation, I managed to make the connection.

For me, I can only describe "insight" as a similar, deeper understanding that comes through contemplation. In the case of meditation, though, the topic isn't a chemical reaction, but an overarching fact of life. I gave an example earlier of how one can understand the Golden Rule, and yet not practice the Golden Rule, or see the many ways in which it can (or should) be applied. It's a flawed example, but (I think) a decent starting point, which I then tried to expand to the Buddhist idea of impermanence.

As Massimo wrote, it is easy to know and say that "eveything changes", but one type of "insight" that can be gained from meditation is exploring and understanding how the fact of impermanence permeates our lives. Things I love change or fade away and things I loathe continually arise (and also, ultimately, fade) and this is happening to all beings, all the time. This understanding helps me to (sometimes) let go of my desire for good things and my loathing of bad things, as both will fade and rise again. It also helps make me more compassionate towards others, whom I now understand are continually going through the same cycles of joy and despair.

It is clear to me that I would be more "hung up" on disappointments and less compassionate toward others without the insight gained through meditation. I could be completely wrong, but I think this goes beyond a simple relaxation technique (although that is a major element of much meditation practice), and moves into developing a deeper understanding about how the universe works, and also how my mind responds to the universe.

I'm running out of analogies. If this still sounds like hooey, I might be out of options!

Not having meditated, I was reluctant to comment, but now the discussion has become fairly general. I am not sure what insight is, but I recall having great difficulties with Geometry in High School (could not get as far as 50%) until one afternoon when I suddenly understood one theorem, and knew, at the same time, that I would never have trouble with Geometry again (in fact I never got less than 95% after that). Also on one of my first summer jobs I could not really understand what a three-part invoice was supposed to do, but that too came to me rather suddenly. Both of these examples incorporated a certain style of thinking (mathematical, commercial) which, once appropriated, became more or less permament. “Getting it”, as they say.

Then there is the difference between a purely intellectual understanding and an understanding charged with emotion or significance. I can understand “A stitch in time saves nine”, but when I find myself fixing problems that are largely the result of my own procrastination, it comes home to me in a new and forceful way. We say things like “ it came home to me”, etc. This can apply to things big and little. I am thinking of all those country songs (“I threw it all away”, etc.)

But all of these examples, no matter how important they may loom in personal life, really only point to the way the mind works. When it comes to explaining the mathematical component of intelligence, or the emotional component of experience, these are raw data only, and the true explanation would probably require a lot of observation and experiment. Thinking that you directly intuit some “reality” could lead you down the garden path, which I believe is the thing that is disturbing Massimo.

When I was a kid I used to ponder how it was that when I decided to pick up an object, my hand always went out and picked up the object. Not only that, but whenever I decided to decide to pick up the object, the same thing happened. I could ponder this all day and not get anywhere with it, because I do not have direct access to what the brain is doing. That is where the explanation seems to lie.

But then again, we explain in the third person, but experience and live in the first person.

Why do you think the atheists out there, the Susan Blackmores and Sam Harrises, espouse such nonsense ie. that Eastern mystic tradition can inform Westerners?

Are the Andrew Newbergs and advocates of so-called "neurotheology" wasting time and resources? Or do you think studying the effects of religious belief on the brain is a justified intellectual endeavor?

I only want to add that "concentrating inward" (a-la-amateur, in my case) is as natural, exciting, positive and necessary as to study science. I cannot distingish which of these two endeavours has been more important in my life.

Explanation is one thing. The individual quest for meaning is another, and is much more inclusive. Isn't the appreciation of art, for example, part of a broader quest? Not so much because of any statement that is made in an individual work, but simply because of the experience or "contemplation" offered by the act of appreciation. People who love music or painting are profoundly affected by these things. Similar thing with poetry, but here the potential for entanglement and confusion is much greater because the medium is verbal. Was Wordsworth crossing the line when he wrote "we murder to dissect", or Blake when he wrote of "Newton's vision, and single sleep"? Whatever the case, I do believe that art may be part of the broader quest, even if it has nothing to do with explanation.I see no reason a priori why the same could not be true of meditation.

I found something that should help those really interested in understanding mediation and particularly enlightenment.

It's a podcast by a zen monk, Genjo Marinello, (info below - it can be easily found & downloaded for free from itunes)

note: It starts out with about 5 minutes of reading from a book of koans. The talk then proceeds. I highly recommend this but expect that few people who claim an interest are actually this interested. I was just listening to it and realized he addresses many of the issues raised in this series of comments.

This Dharma Talk on Case 25 of the Hekiganroku (The Blue Cliff Records) was given on Jan. 9th, the 5th day of Chobo-ji's Rohatsu Sesshin, Indianola, WA. Included are Zen Master Hakuin's instructions on breathing.

What about a path to enlightenment that is completely secular, one that acknowledges the teachings of religion but subscribes to none of them? Isn't it possible that a person can reach peace and enlightenment without believing in God?

What about a path to enlightenment that is completely secular, one that acknowledges the teachings of religion but subscribes to none of them? Isn't it possible that a person can reach peace and enlightenment without believing in God?

I don't mean to be rude, but...did you read any of my posts here? I guess you could say my posts didn't describe a completely secular path to enlightenment (Buddhist principles play a central role), but the path I described seems pretty godless to me.

So, it turns out that posts on abortion and buddhism are the ones that generate the highest number of replies, though both the participants and the tone are quite different. I wonder what it all means... :)

In response to Mark, some atheists (e.g., Blackmore) do espouse Eastern traditions. Then again, Blackmore also thinks that memetics is a great idea, while I think it's useless at best, and positively misleading at worst.

I am also struck by the fact that some people have assumed -- without evidence -- that I have never tried meditation. It turns out that I have, albeit briefly, and found it a mild form of relaxation, but certainly not a path to enlightenment.

Also, it seems to me that several people mistake knowledge (which I don't think meditation, prayer etc. can bring, in any meaningful sense of the word "knowledge") with meditating on the meaning of such knowledge. Even in the latter case, though, "meditating" means thinking and working through something, not sitting crosslegged and breathing deeply while reciting a mantra.

"So, it turns out that posts on abortion and buddhism are the ones that generate the highest number of replies, though both the participants and the tone are quite different. I wonder what it all means... :)"

Tho both activities are basically centered on "self", people who have a pref for "choice" tend to be more hard-hearted? That'll definitely change the tone.

I've meditated too, but not because I wanted to. I was because I was kind of forced to in my early teens by a therapist. Fortunately, was also a little too ADD to do what I was told.

But this is the thing that would bother me about meditating: if in the studies about "speaking in tongues" (which came out this year) it was revealed that those speak in tongues are giving over control of their mind to (most possibly God's spirit), if one were to meditate, who is one then actually giving up control of their mind to?

I wonder what regions of the brain show activity or lack of it during meditation?

I am also struck by the fact that some people have assumed -- without evidence -- that I have never tried meditation. It turns out that I have, albeit briefly, and found it a mild form of relaxation, but certainly not a path to enlightenment.

I'm glad to hear this. I still wonder what the motivation is for stirring up the buddhists - socratic method? pure fencing with words? Continual reaffirmation of one's beliefs in the superiority of one's views? A little of everything above?

I know you consider it a 'cheap shot' but meditation could be viewed as another way to view reality (the HUGE chunk of one's reality that is inside one's head) and as such it is like a telescope - a device to see things differently.

You having tried it is much like someone who has tried a telescope. There are ways to use a telescope that are better than others, and there is considerable effort required to learn using the device. Not something that one can dismiss lightly by saying "I tried it and made up my mind."

And to return to your post thesis - saying meditation is "certainly not a path to enlightenment." depends on how you define enlightenment, no?

Recall that zen enlightenment is described as a brief glimpse of the "cosmic joke" (that the observer and the observed are the same thing)- a peek behind the curtain, an unforgettable event that tends to change people's lives. It's thought that most of the great prophets/sages had gotten this glimpse and it drove them to devote their lives to telling others about it (or for some, staying as quiet as possible about it so folks wouldn't consider them crazy).

Although somewhat 'socratic method' this blogging comment system is very restrictive - much more progress could be made in a face to face discussion. Gotta get back to work!

if one were to meditate, who is one then actually giving up control of their mind to?

Zen buddhists describe it as giving up one's mind to "the original mind" - certainly not a diety, it's more of what happens when you subtract your "self", your dislikes & likes, your preferences for what is good / bad etc. The consciousness that remains is "the original mind".

Indeed. Do I need to point out that I learned a lot more about life and the universe when I used telescopes than when I meditated? :)

I agree. But I wouldn't recommend using a telescope to learn about yourself - use the right tool (method) for the job. Observe the outside world with scientific methods and do the best you can to understand the inside world, who you really are, with other methods, such as zen meditation.

No one here is advocating the use of meditation instead of science. (I think...)

Zen meditation is basically just sitting & observing. Learning to pay attention to small details and learning to pay attention to how your own mind works. Most people aren't very good at observing their own mental processes because they are too involved in the processes (thought, emotion) to step back and evaluate them with some distance.

I don't do any chanting. I practice soto Zen, no koans either. Just sitting & paying attention. It started out painfully boring but now I don't think anything can bore me - there's way too much going on, even in a quiet room, because I'm there.

c: if one were to meditate, who is one then actually giving up control of their mind to?

me: "Zen buddhists describe it as giving up one's mind to "the original mind" - certainly not a diety, it's more of what happens when you subtract your "self", your dislikes & likes, your preferences for what is good / bad etc. The consciousness that remains is "the original mind".

Like drugs and alcohol, if I were not absolutely certain of who it was that I were giving my mind over to, I wouldn't do it.

How does one know that it is not a deity? Is that what you have been told? If it isn't human and it isn't "spirit", what is it?

I ran into two young women in a store last week who were selling some window decor to help raise money for their "youth group". They were both very sweet, humble and kind. But the young lady who approached and actually talked to me, something in her eyes really, REALLY bothered me. She sure was empty alright, and it wasn't a good "empty". I felt also that she was particularly vulnerable and suggestible. I mean, I seriously doubt that her parents would feel good about what she has subjected herself to.

How does one know that it is not a deity? Is that what you have been told?

Good point. It's just parsimony talking - a large part of Zen is distinguishing as clearly as possible, thought from reality. So far, dieties remain in the 'thought' part only.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." P. Dick

- this is what Zen practictioners aim for. Not an empty head as you described that young woman appeard to have (and I agree, LOTS of people sadly live in a world of beliefs rather than one based on the hard truths won by empirical observations, skepticism, doubt, & questioning everything.)

Me: "a large part of Zen is distinguishing as clearly as possible, thought from reality. So far, dieties remain in the 'thought' part only."

But in reality, if the two don't concretely merge the result is incoherence. Making the concepts doubly incoherent is that this way of thinking about the world is also not nearly as Western as you have been told. To have the "the mind" to be the center and focus of reality is in fact far more Western and Greek. There is more to understanding the issue than the following, but it is a good place to start:

"Abstract vs. concrete thought

Greek thought views the world through the mind (abstract thought). Ancient Hebrew thought views the world through the senses (concrete thought).

Concrete thought is the expression of concepts and ideas in ways that can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted and/or heard. All five of the senses are used when speaking and hearing and writing and reading the Hebrew language. An example of this can be found in Psalms 1:3; "He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season, and whose leaf does not wither". In this passage we have concrete words expressing abstract thoughts, such as a tree (one who is upright, righteous), streams of water (grace), fruit (good character) and a unwithered leaf (prosperity).

Appearance vs. Functional Description

Greek thought describes objects in relation to its appearance. Hebrew thought describes objects in relation to its function.

A deer and an oak are two very different objects and we would never describe them in the same way with our Greek form of descriptions. The Hebrew word for both of these objects is (ayil) because the functional description of these two objects are identical to the ancient Hebrews, therefore, the same Hebrew word is used for both. The Hebraic definition of is "a strong leader".

A deer stag is one of the most powerful animals of the forest and is seen as "a strong leader" among the other animals of the forest. Also the oak tree's wood is very hard compared to other trees such as the pine which is soft and is seen as a "strong leader" among the trees of the forest...."http://www.shamar.org/articles/hebrew-thought.php

it would take too long to elaborate here on memetics, perhaps in a separate post. The _very_ basic idea, though, is that everything that memeticists (what an awful word!) are saying has been said by people working on gene-culture co-evolution for decades, and it doesn't require the additional concept of meme.

In other words, memes are vague entities that don't do any work other than rephrase a well known issue.